Python as Guido Intended

[Mike Meyer]

Antoon Pardon <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> writes:
> Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
>
> The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things
> that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for
> things that enable working in the python philosophy.

And what's wrong with that?
>> Yes. And if you need a red hammmer, you should get a red hammer, not
>> use red spray paint on one that wasn't designed to be red. Just
>> because *you* don't see how providing a red option violates the
>> philosophy of python doesn't mean that it doesn't do so.
>
> Well this seems to be the main conflict between those who would
> like Python to go a bit further and those that oppose it.
>
> Should the priority be to enable python's philosophy or should
> it be the priority to limit python to only allow it's philosophy.

Those two statements say the same thing. Part of the Python philosphy,
from "import this", is that there should only be one obvious way to do
it. By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're automatically
limiting python to not allow other - specifically non-pythonic - ways
to do the same thing.

   <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.